H 32°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°The 15th annual Fall Ecology Symposium Thursday featured a lecture from a well-known New York Times reporter and author, Andrew C. Revkin, focusing on the consequences of an increasingly large population and how it will affect the life of humans, as well as the earth, over the next century.
“The question of nine billion people plus one planet is framed around the fact that one way or the other, we’re heading toward roughly two more Chinas on top of the China that exists now: more or less nine billion people,” Revkin said.
Revkin said it has become known humanity is a planetary scale force and is able to communicate instantaneously through a network of means that were not around a few years ago, adding the question remains as to what is to be done about it.
Revkin said he is essentially trying to take a crude look at the environmental challenges facing the world from a holistic point of view.
According to Revkin, the human species is currently in a stage of puberty.
“Scientists are like the grown-ups saying, ‘Now, if you keep doing this, bad things will happen,’” Revkin said.
Revkin said he witnessed first-hand the development and increased usage of resources during a fellowship in French Polynesia. When Revkin arrived in 1978, the village had no electricity or paved roads and only one telephone. Revkin returned 10 years later, in 1988, and found that the village had a paved road, electricity and telephones.
“I’ve been trying to grapple with this question of what is the right level of development for a long time,” Revkin said.
The amount of publicity and information in the media concerning the human species’ impact on the environment is exceptional, but there are many crises that are being overlooked, according to Revkin.
“The catastrophes of our time aren’t so much the visible ones like the tsunami, but the invisible ones, like the million-and-a-half people dying prematurely from breathing indoor air pollution from firewood and dung fires,” Revkin said. “That’s five or six tsunamis worth of dead people every year, but we don’t put that on the front page.”
The symposium also included a panel discussion among four Wisconsin ecologists, which focused on the communication of science through journalism.
Greg Mitman of the History of Science Department commented on the plight of science reporters and the presentation of scientific information to the public.
“One of the things that I think is really important in terms of engaging with the people is that issues only matter if they’re turned into compelling stories,” Mitman said. “Stories move people, issues don’t.”
Christine Ribic of the Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology also spoke of communicating scientific information.
“Working and communicating with the public is not just giving talks but actually engaging them in the science,” Ribic said.
IP hash: 85265cac
The problem isn’t overpopulation, it’s inefficient distribution of resources. Makes me wonder if the energy wasted by first-world citizens (especially Americans) leaving their lights on, driving negligible distances, etc., could instead prevent these indoor air pollution deaths.
IP hash: 653cde43
Well, so what about our consumption? We consume more than Earth can produce every year. That is also caused by inefficient distribution?
IP hash: 9e0d92dc
It is overpopulation. Consumption is only one aspect.According to an article in Science Daily (April 20, 2009), a survey of the faculty at the State University of New York, which has a very strong environmental science department, the planet�s major environmental problem is overpopulation.. Climate change is second. This echoes the theme of the popular free ebook series �And Gulliver Returns� �In Search of Utopia�(http://andgulliverreturns.info) As one professor at SUNY said �With ten million or even a hundred million people on the planet there would be no warming problem.� It is both the technology and the number of people using it that create so many of our planetary problems. There is no question that China’s one child policy has helped the world and the Chinese economy. Whenever a country attempts to reduce its population it can expect a two or three generation period of problems while deaths reduce to equal births. I hope that China will recognize this fact and keep its own population on the path to reduction—which should begin by 2050. China’s actual fertility rate is not 1.0 per woman, but 1.8—the same as Norway’s. But that 400 million fewer births since 1980 (equivalent to the population of the U.S. and Mexico) has been a boon for China and the world.